EarlDoherty

Well, Jake, you are not guilt-free in contributing to this "mess", so I don't see the justification for asking to be left out in its consequences. And I think you have a lot more reason to blame Roo than me. He is the one who is plastering our exchanges from JM all over the Amazon site (and linking to them here) which in addition to my frustrated reaction, exposes your embarrassing lack of knowledge in subjects being discussed. I am not responsible for that.

And as far as "good discussions" go, I have contributed more to this thread's subject and related ones than you or anyone else ever will, and to leave me off your short list of such discussions is just continuing more of your same biased and cocky dismissal of me which got you (and me) into trouble on JM in the first place and has now found its way onto Amazon, thanks to Roo.

And this thread is by no means bankrupt yet. If nothing else, we need to give Roo a chance to defend himself against my recent rebuttals to his errant remarks on gods' flesh being copies of human flesh and so on, as well as on the subject of Gilbert Murray's book. Unless, of course, such a thing is beyond his mandate.

Earl Doherty

EarlDoherty

I don't blame you for hiding your face, mh. And it doesn't exactly constitute a counter-argument.

Earl Doherty

maryhelena

Earl, your on your own. Did you not notice that there was nobody on this thread prepared to support your arguments over Hebrews. Nobody. Nobody on this forum prepared to stand up and support your Hebrews speculation. And it's here, Earl, within a skeptical forum, that you should be able to make common cause. But you can't, you can't. Why? Because people find problems with your interpretations. And Earl, if you can't 'sell' your Hebrews arguments on this forum, what chance have you got to 'sell' them to NT scholars? Zero, zero, chance.

In fact this whole challenge that you issued re Hebrews 8:4 is going to backfire on you. It's going to make you your own worst enemy. Look at the present situation here on this thread. Arguments have been put forward that you deem to be inadequate. But, Earl, you are not the final judge on what the epistle to the Hebrews is about. The historicist/ahistoricist debate is not over - it is far from over. Consequently, it is an open debate and input from many sources should be welcome. Doing, for instance, as you just did, and have done for years, with my ideas, labeling them 'gobbledygook' is not the sort of approach that an open debate requires. Such an approach, Earl, is no different to the manner in which your own ideas have been rejected by JC historicists. No different.

Earl, the historicist/ahistoricist JC debate is far bigger than your contribution to it. If, as you seem to be doing, and is evidenced on this thread, you are standing your ground re your interpretations of Hebrews - then, Earl, you are heading for a rough time ahead. Your theories will be side-lined as the search for early christian origins moves, relentlessly, forward.

Earl, don't loose your dignity in this attempt to support your entrenched position on Hebrews. No ideas are worth that. There is no shame in being wrong. Everyone is at some point or another.

stephan huller

Almost no one who posts regularly here represents anything that could be described as "normative." As radical theories at this board go, Earl's was at least well researched and he came up with something which at least is not out and out ridiculous

aa5874

On this thread you admit that you do NOT agree with Doherty and on another thread you think Doherty made simple-minded assumptions about the Logos and Jesus.

Why are you now reversing yourself when you have already claimed Doherty made simple minded assumptions??

It is clear that you really think that Doherty's theory is not well researched.

Jan 25 2013Jan 26 2013 Jan. 26. 2013
Jan 27. 2013
Jan 27 2013

EarlDoherty

None of this says anything toward whether I am right or wrong. And if people find problems with my interpretations, they ought to be able to explain where I have gone wrong and offer better ones, better grounded in evidence and proper reading of the text, and ones which will stand up to my counter-arguments. But they can't, they can't. Why? Because the problems they find are due to a reluctance to accept my interpretations, for various reasons and various preconceptions. You yourself are a good example. You flatly reject my views, but you have done nothing to discredit them and support your own but a lot of meandering and flights-of-fancy philosophy backed up by zero, zero evidence. The latter is why I have been at odds with you personally for so long. You have nothing concrete in the evidence to back up what you say, and when I challenge you on that, it is like water off a duck's back.

Of course it is different. I don't represent a class of people or scholars (amateur or professional) who have a vested interest in rejecting those ideas, or a personal incredulity about ideas they don't like or can't get their minds around because they are locked into modern styles of thinking. If I can demonstrate that others' (whether professional or amateur) ideas or interpretations are inadequate, then they are inadequate unless it can be shown that my demonstration is faulty. That's what deductive logic is all about. Merely declaring that I am wrong, or that I'm dogmatic, or that I have a swelled head, or whatever the ad hominem response might be, does not show that. The only thing that shows it is proper logical and scholarly argument. So far, no one has done that in regard to Hebrews 8:4. If you think they have, or if you think you can do better, then make the attempt yourself, preferably taking into account all that has been argued on both sides to this point.

And no one is the "final judge" on what Hebrews is all about. The only point we can reach is to arrive at the best and most unassailable overall interpretation of it, taking into account and explaining as many elements as possible within it. Bernard, for example, has tried to do that on many occasions and in regard to many passages. I would say that I have countered him successfully on all counts. If you don't agree, show me where his arguments have been more effective.

And in what way is that search "moving relentlessly foward"? Advocating that Mark is allegorizing the crucifixion of Antigonus? Your theory has even less acceptance than mine, with zero evidence put forward to back it up. That Bart Ehrman and RJ Hoffmann are correct in their estimation of an HJ? That Paul is based on a background of the Gospel story, even though not a shred of that story can be found in him? I have asked you and aa to put forward any evidence to support that Paul does not indicate every sign of regarding his Christ as entirely heavenly, and you have failed (yes, yes, I know, aa, born of woman, born of woman). I stand my ground because my study of the record has led me to that ground and no one has been able to dislodge me from it.

Dignity is not lost when ideas are held to that have not been disproven. Everyone thought that Ehrman would once and for all discredit me and mythicism in general. He failed miserably. Would I switch sides just because some are here doing their best to browbeat me, and use every trick in the book except legitimate and effective counter-argument? Why would I do that? And I disagree: ideas held with conviction grounded in unbiased research are worth a lot. If anything, that produces dignity, regardless of how some others choose to see it.

And who has shamed me by demonstrating that I am wrong? You? GDon? Jeffrey Gibson? Tim O'Neill? Apostate Abe? AA? Jake Jones? Bart Ehrman? Hoffmann (who condemned my scholarship without even reading the book)? Carrier (who rather accepted my basic position)? Countless others on this board who over the years have foamed at the mouth over my contentions but did next to nothing to discredit them? Or the biggest joke of them all, Roo Bookaroo with six zeros in his name?

I have never claimed infallibility on everything I put forward, every detail and every argument. No one is capable of that, nor is there any shame in it. But I demand a lot from my detractors. I demand evidence, I demand counter-argument, I demand logic. Above all, I demand real knowledge about what is being talked about, not simple atomistic pointing to some piece of text with some imagined a priori meaning, or claims about how the ancient mind thought that are grounded in ignorance. I demand a passing up of ad hominem personal attacks when nothing else works. So far, I have gotten precious little of any of this.

Earl Doherty

MrMacSon

I appreciate it's an argument, and yes I know formal argument and its two main streams - deductive argument and inductive argument - quite well.

I just think you would be better to nuance your arguments with prefixies such as

the x writer wrote, or proposed, that "God spoke to previous generations through the prophets to be read in scripture ... "

the x writer wrote that (or proposed that) "In perfect parallel, God in these last days (the present) speaks to us by his Son"

aa5874

Doherty just doesn't get it.

As soon as he admitted that Hebrews 8.4 was ambiguous then he had no smoking gun and he knew it before he made the challenge.

stephan huller

Quite the contrary. I think he has done quite a bit of work. I think it is interesting and because Hebrews is so ambiguous he might get something right or at least help stimulate future research. I just don't understand the hostility. It's not like he's mountainman.

stephan huller

I mean it is more interesting exploring the limits of what we know about Hebrews than some of the other mental case theories that get floated here